L.G. v. S.L.
| Decision Date | 04 May 2017 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 29A04-1607-AD-1756 |
| Citation | 76 N.E.3d 157 |
| Parties | L.G., Appellant-Respondent, v. S.L., et al., Appellees-Petitioners. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorneys for Appellant : John S. Terry, Stephenie K. Gookins, Cate, Terry & Gookins LLC, Carmel, Indiana
Attorney for Appellees : Charles P. Rice, Murphy Rice, LLP, South Bend, Indiana
[1] This appeal arises from a discovery dispute between L.G. ("Father")1 and S.L. and W.L. ("Adoptive Parents") that resulted in the dismissal of Father's motion to contest the adoption of his putative child, Infant Male R. ("Child"), and the trial court's entry of a decree of adoption. The overarching issue is whether Father caused undue delay in the proceeding when he objected to Adoptive Parents' repeated requests for the release of his mental health records. Adoptive Parents characterized Father's objections to their requests for those records as unjustified attempts to thwart and delay the adoption proceeding. But Father had a right to object to the unqualified release of his mental health records, and it was Adoptive Parents' failure to comply with the Indiana Code that delayed the proceeding until April 11, 2016. Nonetheless, the trial court dismissed Father's petition to contest the adoption on procedural grounds, which prevented Father from vindicating his parental rights.
[2] We hold that the trial court erred when it dismissed Father's motion to contest the adoption. The record on appeal demonstrates that Father has been actively engaged in protecting his putative parental rights over Child. Father filed both a putative father affidavit and a petition to establish paternity before Child's birth. He then filed a motion to dismiss the adoption petition, a motion to contest the adoption, a petition to revoke Adoptive Parents' temporary custody of Child, and a petition for parenting time. He both propounded and responded to discovery, which included signing authorizations for the release of his mental health records following a hearing on Adoptive Parents' request for those records as required by statute. And, prior to the final hearing, he participated in two hearings in person and in other hearings by counsel or by telephone. In sum, Father did not unduly delay the proceeding.
[3] On appeal, Father presents two issues for our review, which we restate as the following three issues:
We also address one issue sua sponte :
4. Whether the trial judge should recuse himself on remand.
[4] We reverse and remand for further proceedings.2
[5] In September 2008, Father, who is from Senegal, moved to New Jersey to attend boarding school. Several years later, Father met A.R. ("Mother"), and the two began a romantic relationship. During 2014, Father and Mother lived together in Indianapolis and in Sewickley, Pennsylvania, and the couple had a daughter together. In August 2014, Father enrolled in college at Robert Morris University near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, but he continued to visit Mother and their daughter, who were then living in Indiana, on weekends and during breaks from school.
[6] At some point, Mother became pregnant with Child. During the pregnancy, in the Fall of 2015 Mother told Father that she intended to place Child for adoption. On October 23, prior to the birth of the Child, Father filed a petition to establish paternity in the Marion Superior Court.
[7] On November 7, Mother gave birth to Child in a hospital in Fishers, but she did not immediately notify Father about Child's birth. When Mother eventually did tell Father about the birth and the pending adoption, Father wrote what the Adoptive Parents characterize as "a suicide letter," which Father gave to "administrators" at his college "and directed that a copy be sent" to Mother. Appellant's App. Vol. II at 213. Father was "subsequently admitted to a hospital for a mental health evaluation."3 Id.
[8] On November 9, Adoptive Parents filed their petition to adopt Child in the Hamilton Superior Court, and the court thereafter consolidated Father's paternity action with the adoption proceeding. In their petition, Adoptive Parents alleged in relevant part that Father's consent to the adoption was unnecessary under Indiana Code Section 31-19-9-124 because he was "unfit to be a parent." Id. at 21. On November 19, Father filed a motion to dismiss the adoption petition. And, on November 30, Father timely filed his motion to contest the adoption in the trial court. In the meantime, the trial court awarded temporary custody of Child to Adoptive Parents.5
[9] On December 15, the trial court held a hearing on Father's motion to dismiss and denied that motion, and the court denied Father's motion to stay the final hearing on the adoption petition. The court also granted the parties until January 11, 2016, to respond to discovery requests and ordered Father "to immediately review" authorizations permitting Adoptive Parents to obtain his mental health records and "to determine" if he had objections to those requests. Id. at 6. The court set a hearing on Father's motion to contest the adoption for April 25, 2016.
[10] On January 11, 2016, Father submitted his responses to Adoptive Parents' thirty-four interrogatories and forty-four requests for production of documents, including more than 2,000 pages of documents. In response to Adoptive Parents' request for information and documentation regarding Father's health, including his mental health, Father objected on the grounds that those requests sought "information, diagnoses, treatment, and records protected by the physician-patient privilege, protected by HIPAA, and [also] protected by the Indiana 39-1-1, et seq. [sic]." Id. at 46. Father also objected to several of the other requests for production and interrogatories on the grounds that they were overbroad6 and/or sought privileged information. On January 15, Father filed a motion to quash subpoenas to nonparties that Adoptive Parents had submitted in an effort to obtain information including his mental health records. On February 1, Adoptive Parents filed a motion to compel discovery. While that motion was pending, Father responded to a second set of discovery requests from Adoptive Parents.
[11] Following a telephonic hearing on February 29, on March 9 the trial court entered an order denying Father's motion to quash subpoenas, granting Adoptive Parents' motion to compel discovery, setting for a hearing Father's petition for revocation of temporary custody and petition for parenting time for April 25, and setting a discovery deadline of April 18. In addition, the court ordered Father to sign authorizations for the release of his medical, mental health, school, and employment records.
[12] On March 15, Father filed a motion to continue the evidentiary hearing on his motion to contest the adoption on the grounds that the discovery deadline of April 18 did not provide sufficient time to prepare for the hearing. Also on March 15, Father filed a motion to reconsider and for a stay of its March 9 order. In that motion, Father reiterated his objections to releasing information regarding his mental health and alleged that the subpoenas proffered by Adoptive Parents were overbroad in that they sought information regarding Father's mental health. Father alleged that the trial court's March 9 order did not comply with "the procedures and protections set forth in Indiana Code § 16-39-3-1 et[ ] seq. (2015) regarding a Court Order for the release of [mental health] records over the objection of a party." Id. at 86. In particular, Father requested a hearing required by statute, see I.C. § 16-39-2-8, regarding, among other things, the need for the requested records.
[13] On March 21, the trial court held a hearing on Father's motion to reconsider and for a stay. During that hearing, although they had not filed a petition for the release of Father's mental health records under Indiana Code Section 16-39-3-3, Adoptive Parents moved the trial court to dismiss Father's motion to contest the adoption. Adoptive Parents' motion was based on Trial Rule 37, as a sanction of dismissal for discovery violations, and Indiana Code Section 31-19-10-1.2, for Father's alleged failure to prosecute the motion to contest the adoption without "undue delay." The trial court denied that oral motion.
[14] Instead, following the hearing, on March 23 the court issued an order granting Father's motion to reconsider "as to the Mental Health Records" and stating:
Id. at 101. The court then set a hearing "concerning the Release of Mental Health Records" for April 11. Id. Still, the trial court denied Father's motion to reconsider "in all other respects" and ordered Father to "respond on or before March 31, 2016, concerning any and all other outstanding discovery and/or shall provide any and all requested authorizations as set forth in the Order filed on March 9, 2016." Id. at 102. On March 28, Father filed his motion for a finding of paternity, to which he attached a copy of the paternity DNA test results that appeared to show...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A.C.S. v. R.S.E. (In re C.A.H.)
...appeared at other hearings, maintained contact with his attorney, and otherwise participated in the proceedings. See L.G. v. S.L., 76 N.E.3d 157, 170 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), summarily aff'd in part , 88 N.E.3d 1069 (Ind. 2018) (holding that the dismissal of a motion to contest based solely on......
-
L.G. v. S.L.
...court's findings and conclusions "demonstrate the court's negative assessment of Father's credibility and character." L.G. v. S.L., 76 N.E.3d 157, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). The Court of Appeals had "significant concern" that Judge Nation or any trial judge would be able to set aside these p......
-
A.C.S. v. R.S.E. (In re C.A.H), Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-AD-240
...has thus set a high bar for terminating parental rights[.]" In re Bi.B. , 69 N.E.3d 464, 465 (Ind. 2017) ; see also L.G. v. S.L. , 76 N.E.3d 157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (holding that the trial court's dismissal of the father's motion to contest the adoption based solely on his failure to appea......